








ale &C. Mert 1h GT] 


AJ 
o 


She 





Dissolve the American Union, 


BRITISH ARISTOCRATIC PLOT. 


BY 


Hew Pork: 
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR. 
JOHN F. TROW, PRINTER, 50 GREENE STREET 


OT + 5) a ¢ 2 
ns 1862. NN 
¢ oe : 
































THE 


PRESENT ATTEMPT 


TO 


DISSOLVE THE AMERICAN UNION, 


A British Aristocratic Plot. 


NEW YORK: 


PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR. 
JOHN F. TROW, 50 GREENE STREET. 
1862. 


1 


does intend to say that British politicians have adroitly taken 
advantage of this state of feeling, and by artfully and assiduously 
increasing the excitement, have used it to accomplish their great 
measure of State policy, the severance of the United States. 

In all that relates to African Slavery, Great Britain has ever 
taken a most prominent part, long before the era of our national 
independence. Every measure of that Government, whether in 
favor of slavery or against slavery, has been enacted by her, 
directly or indirectly, for the promotion of her own material 
interests, and chiefly to increase or maintain the power of her 
oligarchy. At different periods of her history, she has taken 
directly opposite sides of the great moral question of the slave 
trade, changing her opinion to suit the selfish interest of her rul- 
ing class. 

When Sir John Hawkins, in 1561, first engrafted upon Eng- 
lish commerce the African slave trade, boasting that in providing 
his first slave cargo, he burnt a city of 8,000 inhabitants that he 
might capture 250 of them for slaves to freight his vessel, Eng- 
lish public sentiment, so far from being shocked, not only ac- 
quiesced in the deed, but Queen Elizabeth herself openly pro- 
tected, and shared in the profits of the next expedition, the 
success of which opened the way to England for a continued 
slave commerce of immense profits for 240 years. It was 
another English queen at a later date, Queen Anne, who gave 
directions to the Colonial Governor of New York “‘ to take care 


that the Almighty be devoutly and duly served, according to the 


rites of the Church of England, and to give all possible encour- 
agement to trade and traders, particularly to the Royal Afri- 
can Company of England,” which company was expressly 
enjoined by the queen, “to take special care that the colony 
should always have a constant and sufficient supply of merchant- 
able negroes at moderate rates.” That a marvellous change has 
occurred in English sentiment since those days, is sufficiently 
notorious. 


5 


It is not necessary to attribute to the many excellent and 
truly philanthropic men who originated and consummated the 
abolition of the slave trade, any other than a sentiment of the 
highest philanthropy in the measures they set on foot to suppress 
this odious trade, for it was not the mere emigration or transpor- 
tation of Africans to America, nor their condition of slavery, 
that constituted the odiousness of the system, so much as the 
brutal and inhuman and reckless manner in which it was carried 
on by Englishmen, that roused the indignation of the people of 
Great Britain. It was natural that in the storm of popular 
indignation which arose from the disgusting manner in which 
this trade was conducted, an indignation which at length per- 
vaded the kingdom, very nice discrimination would not be 
made by the popular mind between that part of the system 
embraced in the simple transportation and emigration of men 
and women, and the cruelties unjustly and outrageously perpe- 
trated by the conductors of that trade. 

Tt was natural that the masses of the population should con- 
found both emigration, and the mode of conducting it, in one indis- 
criminate category, and affix to the simple emigration and trans- 
portation of Africans, and their original condition of slavery, the 
character which belonged only to the abuses of the system. It was 
not the slavery of the African, but the “ horrors of the middle 
passage,” in other words, the savage barbarity of the British com- 
mercial marine, that, in the days of Wilberforce and Buxton and 
their philanthropic associates, stirred the minds of the British 
‘people to abolish the slave trade. These philanthropists made a 
just and proper distinction, wholly lost sight of by the fiery fanatics 
of this day, between the slave trade and the system of slavery. 
The former, through the brutality of the English traders, had 
become so notoriously odious, so disgustingly hateful, from the 
unrestrained abuses of more than two centuries, that it at length 
became an easy matter to excite the community to measures — 
for its abatement; while the latter, the system of slavery, was 


6 


regarded in a very undefined degree as an evil which it was 
hoped might eventually in some way be abandoned. Yet imme- 
diate emancipation was strongly and firmly opposed even by 
Mr. Wilberforce and his associates, and distinctly proscribed 
by them as a measure instigated, not by the friends, but by the 
enemies of the slave trade abolition, for the purpose of defeating 
that abolition. 

Nor is it necessary to include in this censure, which Ameri- 
cans must pass upon the guilty authors of this intrigue in 
Great Britain to divide our Union, the masses of the English 
people, or even the majority of the aristocracy, who may pos- 
sibly be ignorant of the settled purpose of the Exeter Halli or 
Stafford House portion of the latter class, who for their own 
selfish ends may be more active and prominent in the intrigue ; 
and even if’ cognizant of the intrigue of certain aristocratic 
coteries, may be induced silently to acquiesce, without critically 
scrutinizing the moral aspects of the intrigue, since its po- 
litical purpose on the whole is favorable to the power of their 
caste. Selfishness evinced in the individual is condemned as 
a mean and unworthy passion, but diffused through a mass, be- 
ginning with the smaller, and gradually increasing to larger 
associations, a family, a state or a nation, it passes in its moral 
aspect from being considered a low passion, to take the com- 
plexion even of a virtue. Hence bodies of men do acts, and 
encourage measures, of which, in their individual - position, they 
would be heartily ashamed. No one who has studied the clan- 
nish character of the British aristocracy can have failed to ob- 
serve that the strength, the well-being, the security of its caste, 
has to it the force of a moral law, and the conscience of its mem- 
bers is as sensitive to any infraction of its stability, as the 
individual conscience is to alaw of God. Hence all the intrigues 
to sow divisions among other nations, where by such acts it is 
possible to add to the power and stability of their caste, however 
base and profligate and atrocious, are pursued without a single 


7 


conscientious self-reproach. The fleet of a friendly neighbor, 
confidingly lying dismantled in its own harbor, is ruthlessly and 
insultingly seized on the plea that self-protection required the 
act. Commanding points throughout the world are seized on 
any plausible pretext, in order that the British maritime suprem- 
acy, directly and intimately connected with the power of the 
aristocracy, may be secured and extended. India is to be sub- 
dued that its wealth may be controlled and be poured into the lap 
of the aristocracy, to sustain its life and feed its power. China 
is invaded for the same purpose. Intrigues to foment divisions 
between rival parties are rife throughout India, and Britain takes 
part with that party, utterly reckless of its moral merits, which 
best promises her the control of both. The local and humane laws 
of these countries are superciliously set at naught by her, and the 
nauseous drug that stupefies and kills its millions per annum, 
the drug benevolently forbidden by the more conservative and 
more truly humane, though heathen Chinaman, is forced upon 
a population that would, but for British cupidity, reject it with 
loathing ; but the law of self-preservation and well-being utters 
its commands, and the Chinese are condemned to a slow and 
idiotic death, that the coffers of the British aristocracy may be 
filled with these wages of iniquity. 

But Britain boasts of her Christian civilization, and indeed 
were it not that the salt of a genuine Christianity, mixed indeed 
with much of human infirmity, truly permeates enough of her 
population to stay the doom of Sodom, we might expect to see 
that doom executed any moment. If, while individual sins re- 
ceive their punishment in a future life, national sins are punished 
in this life, the largest charity cannot but see in a not far distant 
future, a terrible retribution for that guilty Government. 


B. 

















‘ . é eliceniaGellh iy is c2 : 
a > ona ait ‘ t 


cS Oe ce 





* . Bins Kamen i. Aes ei - ; 
oe a anleasih de: got. Rec a 

; Be ee s “a bat i ea t * - - 7 = | 

e ot ae a ieee Hip fin cf Fs | . 

ee oe hata ido o., 





alte Saat oF 
’ * 
ins? £5, Ket ar 
eye * eres ie soils tel ~ - 
? gin) as 


Pus Hs b eb hia. 


aby. ae * ws Heh es a 








j- 
‘ “ ed 
_ 


= pene 
7 wa oF asp 
2 a ia dog ink 


7 
: 
‘ 
ce 
: 2% 
: 
-a> 
a 
18 
F. . 
= + 





THE PRESENT ATTEMPT TO DISSOLVE THE AMERICAN 
UNION, A BRITISH ARISTOCRATIC PLOT. 


e+e 





Tue following important letter was written by Sidney EH. 
Morse, Esq., and published (Dec., 1860) in Harper’s Weekly. 
The writer is well. known as a gentleman of intelligence and in- 
tegrity, and just now this letter has a fearful significance. 
When it was published, more than a year ago, the anti-slavery 
press ridiculed it and sneered at it; but just now, perhaps, their 
eyes are sufficiently opened to see what tools they have been in 
the hands of the British aristocracy :— 


A VIEW BEHIND THE CURTAIN. 


In the Fall of 1853 the writer met in Paris the late Mr. Aaron 
Leggett, formerly a wealthy merchant in this city, and a member 
of the Society of Friends. We conversed frequently on the politi- 
cal prospects of our country as affected by the agitation of the 
slavery question. Mr. L. said that, when he was a young man, 
he was an active and zealous member of a Manumission society, 
and that he continued to cherish in after life a very compassion- 
ate feeling for the poor negroes. At the time of the general 
emancipation of the slaves in the British West Indies, Mr. Leg- 
gett’s business called him to the city of Mexico, and while resid- 
ing there he met Deputy Commissary-General Wilson, of the 
British army, an agent appointed by the British Government to 
make the financial arrangements connected with the payment to 
the West India slaveholders of their portion of the £20,000,000 
voted by the British Parliament as a compensation for the forced 
sacrifice of their property. 

Mr. Leggett said that, when he learned Mr. Wilson’s errand, 


10 


he took occasion, while he was sitting with him one day after 
dinner, to express his admiration of the British Government and 
the British people, for that noble act, the vote of £20,000,000 
sterling, to procure liberty for 800,000 negroes! He gave full 
utterance to his feelings, and almost exhausted the vocabulary of 
eulogy to find the commendatory epithets which he applied to 
England and Englishmen. 

“ Mr. Wilson did not seem to sympathize with me,” said Mr. 
L., “and when I had finished, he turned to me and said, ‘ Do 
you think, Mr. Leggett, that this emancipation of the negroes 
will prove to be a wise measure ??” 

“ Certainly, I replied,” said Mr. L. “ How can it be other- 
wise?” 

“The cool heads in England,” said Mr. Wilson, “do not 
think that it will be beneficial in its effects on the interests of 
the people either in its colonies or in the mother country. Nor 
do I think so. We think that the freed negroes will do very 
little work ; and that the West India Colonies, as to their com- 
mercial didhie to the mother country, will be ruined.” 

Mr. Leggett had been carried away with representations of 
the enthusiastic friends of emancipation—that free labor was 
more productive than slave labor; that when the negroes were 
free they would receive wages, and that this would stimulate 
them to raise sugar and coffee in greater quantities; that com- 
merce would feel the benefit of the new impulse to agriculture; 
that lands would rise in value; that the income of the planters 
would be increased, &c.; and his ardor was at first cooled by 
. Mr. Wilson’s gloomy view of the case. 

“ After a little reflection, however,” said Mr. L., “I con- 
tinued my eulogy of the British Government and the British 
people; and I went now further than before in the expressions 
of my admiration, but I went on a new tack. I said that the 
enemies of Englishmen, and of their Government, were accus- 
tomed to represent them as always governed by mercenary con- 
siderations, and too willing to sacrifice justice, humanity, and all 
the virtues, to the lust of gain; but here was a case in which the 
cool heads that directed the action of the Government deliberate- 
ly burdened their country with an immense debt, not to open new 
fields of wealth, but in full prospect of destroying the commercial 


11 


value of their West India colonies, and of impoverishing the peo- 
ple there, and the proprietors in England—and all from a hu- 
mane feeling, and a high sense of justice—a high sense of what is 
due to poor, helpless, down-trodden negro slaves. It was the 
noblest act recorded in history! I knew of no parallel to it any- 
where.” 

“When I had finished,” added Mr. L., “ Mr. W. again turn- 
ed to me, and said: ‘ Mr. Leggett, do you really believe that the 
men who control the action of the British Government were led 
by such motives as you ascribe to them, to sacrifice the com- 
mercial interests of their country ??” 

“T replied,” said Mr. L., “ that if the men who controlled 
the action of the British Government really believed that the 
abolition of slavery in the British West Indies would end in the 
commercial ruin of the islands, I could not conceive of any 
_ other motive for their conduct than'the noble one which I had 
assigned.” 

“Well, Mr. Leggett,” said Mr. W., “ you may believe this, 
but I do not. JI believe that the action of the British Govern- 
ment is made to promote, as far as possible, the INTERESTS of 
the English aristocracy.” 

Mr. L. then asked, “ What interest of the English aristocracy 
will be promoted by the ruin of the British West India islands ? ” 

Mr. Wilson said that the abolition of slavery in the British 
colonies would naturally create an enthusiastic anti-slavery senti- 
ment in England and America, and that in America this would 
in process of time excite a hostility between the free States and 
the slave States, which would end in a dissolution of the Ameri- 
can Union, and the consequent failure of the grand experiment 
of democratic government; and theruin of Democracy in Amer- 
ica would be the perpetuation of aristocracy in England. I 
do not undertake to give the language of Mr. Leggett, but the 
following paraphrase conveys, in my own language, the impres- 
sion made upon my mind of the course of reasoning by which Mr. 
W. came to his conclusion : 

“The English aristocracy have ruled England for ages. 
Their position is more enviable than that of any similar class in 
any other country on the globe. They rule the wealthiest em- 
pire in the world. Their landed estates embrace a large portion 


12 


of all the lands in the kingdom; and these estates are entailed 
in their families. The House of Lords is composed exclusively 
of the aristocracy; and they have such influence in the elections 
that the members of the House’of Commons are to a great ex- 
tent the near relatives of the Lords. Offices of honor and power, 
and sinecure offices with large incomes, in the church, the army, 
the navy, the colonies, at foreign courts, and in all the departments 
of home government, are in their gift, and can be bestowed at 
their pleasure upon their relatives and friends. They have in- 
herited these privileges from their ancestors, and their great aim, 
their ruling desire, is to retain them in their families, and to 
transmit them to their posterity. Their control of the public 
press, and of all the fountains of popular opinion and sentiment 
in England, has enabled them to impress the minds of the great 
body of the middle classes there with the belief that the English 
aristocracy, with its powers and privileges, is essential to the 
prosperity and glory of the English nation. 

“ Recently, however, this belief has been seriously shaken by 
the success of Democratic institutions in America. “Englishmen 
are getting now to be well acquainted with America; and they 
see there a people of the same race with themselves, speaking the 
same language, reading the same books, holding the same religious 
opinions, loving the same pursuits; in short, like themselves in 
every respect except that they have no aristocracy; and yet, un- 
der their Democratic institutions, Americans are advancing even 
more rapidly than Englishmen, in commerce and the arts, in the 
diffusion of knowledge among the people, in population, wealth, 
and all the elements of national greatness; and intelligent men 
of the middle classes in England are beginning to think that 
aristocracy, with its heavy taxation for the support of sinecure 
offices, may not be so essential as they have heretofore supposed 
to the prosperity of England; and that the English people would, 
perhaps, make more rapid progress if they should throw off this 
burden, by Republicanizing or Americanizing their institutions. 
The great danger to the English aristocracy lies in this idea in 
the minds of the English people; for if it should take root and 
spread, it might end in a revolution in which they would lose all 
their privileges. Hence they study every thing in America and 
in England with the deepest interest in its bearings on this 


matter. 


13 


“ The English aristocracy know that the English people are 
a liberty-loving, a liberty-vaunting people. They saw with what 
ease numerously-signed petitions for the abolition of slavery could 
be obtained in districts, and among classes, where was no interest 
to check the current of the popular feeling. They knew that 
they could have found no difficulty in disposing of such petitions 
in Parliament without granting them, for they could have con- 
tinued to receive them respectfully, and postpone action upon 
them endlessly, if their interest had required it. But after a 
time they, doubtless, reasoned with themselves thus : 

“ What will be the effect of encouraging and finally granting 
these petitions? If slavery shall be abolished in the British 
colonies, by compensating slaveholders for their losses, nobody in 
England will then have any interest in opposing the wildest and 
most enthusiastic expressions of anti-slavery sentiment. Eng- 
lishmen will then love to refer with pride and boasting to the 
large sum sacrificed by their Government, with their concurrence, 
on the altar of liberty, justice, and humanity. They will then 
look to America, and they will see slavery still there, for South- 
ern slaveholders in America, of course, will never ruin themselves 
and their country by imitating Great Britain in abolishing it. 
Englishmen can then be easily excited, on account of American 
slavery, to look down with scorn upon Americans and American 
institutions ; and if any popular orator, or writer, in England 
shall propose to deprive the aristocracy of their powers and 
privileges, and to fortify his argument shall refer to the pros- 
perity of America under democrati¢ institutions, he will be met 
with this scorn and defeated in his purpose. 

“ This will be the effect in England of the abolition of slavery 
in the British colonies; but the most important effect will be the 
effect in America. America is divided almost equally between 
free States and slave States—between States in which the negroes 
are so few that no harm results from their emancipation, and 
States in which slavery is so deeply rooted that it cannot be 
safely abolished without ruin to all classes of the population. In 
the free States a fierce anti-slavery sentiment, a bitter hatred of 
slavery and slaveholders can be excited almost as easily as in 

_ England, and in process of time, by constantly fanning the flame, 
such a hostility can be kindled between the people of the two 


14 


great sections that it will lead to the destruction of the American 
Union, and the failure of the grand experiment of democratic 
government by men of the Anglo-Saxon race. And this failure 
of democracy in America will be a new lease, and a long lease, to 
the English aristocracy of their powers and privileges. In short, 
Mr. Leggett, I believe that the English aristocracy lent their 
influence to the abolition of slavery in the British colonies that 
_ they may use it as a wedge for the division of the American 
Union. 

“ They did it to promote their own interest, to perpetuate their 
own privileges, by the destruction of the Union and the pros- 
perity of Democratic America ; and to secure their object, they 
care no more for adebt of £20,000,000 sterling and the com- 
mercial ruin of the British West India Islands, than for the 
ashes of that cigar you are smoking.” 

In the above sketch, I repeat, I do not profess to give the 
language of Mr. L., but have endeavored, in my own language, 
to convey the impression made upon my mind of the course of 
reasoning by which Mr. W. came to his conclusion. The words 
in italies, however, are very nearly the words used by Mr. 
Leggett. 

What struck me as particularly noteworthy in Mr. Leggett’s 
narrative was, that before the experiment of negro emancipation 
in the British West Indies had been fully tried, and while the 
friends and supporters of the measure professed to believe that 
its effects would be happy upon those immediately connected with 
it, both in the islands and in England, an agent of the British 
Government, who must have had uncommon opportunities for 
forming a sound judgment in the case, eapresses his belief that 
they who controlled the action of the Government knew, when 
they gave their sanction to the measure, that there was every 
reason to expect that it would be calamitous to the negroes, to 
the planters, and to the British people, and knew, too, that they 
could easily have prevented it, but that they still supported and 
encouraged it, because it would promote the interest of the Eng- 
lish aristocracy, by enabling them to excite in the free States 

of America such an anti-slavery feeling as would lead to a divi- 
sion of the American Union and the destruction of the great 
Democratic Republic. 


15 


A constant attendance at the meetings of religious and 
philanthropic societies, and especially of anti-slavery meetings, 
during a residence of four years in London, thoroughly satisfied 
me that anti-slavery meetings and excitements are got up in Eng- 
land, not for the purpose of a removal or an amelioration of the 
evils of slavery in any part of the world, but chiefly, if not ex- 
clusively, with a view to keep up in the hearts of the English 
people a hatred of the people and institutions of America. 

And as to our own country, all who are acquainted with the 
history of the anti-slavery movement here, know that, prior to the 
abolition of slavery in the British colonies, the American anti- 
slavery sentiment was eminently kind, considerate, rational, and 
Christian ; that it had already happily effected the gradual abo- 
lition of slavery i in all the Northern States, and was at the time 
very active in the border Slave States, especially among the 
slaveholders, who, after individually emancipating scores of 
thousands of their own slaves, united with each other in anti- 
slavery societies to promote the gradual, but eventually total, abo- 
lition of slavery by law in their respective States, with fair pros- 
pects of success in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and 
Missouri, and with some hope even in North Carolina and Ten- 
nessee—the emancipation of the slaves in most of these States to 
go hand in hand with their removal to other lands. It is also 
well known, that immediately after the abolition of slavery in the 
British colonies, anti-slavery societies of a totally different charac- 
ter were formed in New England, and that these societies were 
based on the principles of bitter hatred to all slaveholders, and a 
fierce denunciation of the measures which had been framed with 
great consideration and wisdom by Southern slaveholders, for the 
welfare of their slaves, and the elevation of the negro race. It is 
known that the supporters of these New England anti-slavery 
societies established newspapers, and issued tracts, employed lec- 
turers, and devised plans, evidently intended to irritate Southern 
men, and provoke to acts which would irritate Northern men, and 
provoke retaliatory acts, and thus by continued angry action and 
reaction, ripen a hostility between the North and the South, which 
would naturally end in a dissolution of the American Union. 
This system of hostility has been kept up now for twenty-five 
years, and, with what effect, let the present state of the country 
answer. 


16 


How much of the large amount of money expended by Amer- 
ican Abolitionists in support of this organized system of hostility 
to the Constitution of the United States, has been contributed in 
England, we know not, but we do know that, while conservative 
Americans have often been publicly and wantonly insulted in 
England in connection with the slavery question, and without 
apology, where apology was due, from members of the aristocracy, 
other Americans, whose chief claim to notice was the zeal and 
success with which they had attacked a fundamental law of their 
country and promoted bitter strife between the people of its two 
great sections, have been invited to the homes of the English 
nobility, flattered, honored, and encouraged on their return to 
America to renew their warfare upon the people and institutions 
of the South. These facts are readily explained on the theory 
of Deputy Commissary-General Wilson, that the aim of the Eng- 
lish aristocracy is to perpetuate their own power and privileges 
by destroying the great American Democratic Republic, and 
they cannot, we think, be satisfactorily explained on any other 


theory. 
Stonzy E. Morse. 





For the Journal of Commerce. 


IS THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION THE CON- 
SUMMATION OF A WELL DEVISED BRITISH 
PLOT? 


Messrs. Eprrors:—Many think so; and there is more eyi- 
dence of the truth of an affirmative answer to this pregnant ques- 
tion than superficial observers are probably aware. 

If calm, sober, thinking men, north and south, would but care- 
fully consider whether they have not been the dupes of a subtle 
foreign intrigue, it would seem that a great change in their recip- 
rocal feelings might be the result. There is evidence if they will 
but search for it, and well weigh it, to make very palpable how 
gradually and artfully these designs have for years been in pro- 
gress, till the end aimed at is at length areomprished ; the Union 
is divided, and civil war begun. 

Many of your readers will have doubtless perused an article in 
Harper's Weekly of Dec. 15, 1860, written by Sidney E. Morse, 
Esq., late editor of the Observer, giving some singular facts on 


17 


this very subject, which drew forth a disparaging article in the 
Tribune, pronouncing the revelations there made “a hoax.” In 
that article Mr. Morse gives, under his own name, a statement of 
a conversation in Paris with a gentleman, the late Aaron Leggett, 
Esq., well known in this community, not long since deceased, a 
gentleman of great benevolence of heart, but, like most of his creed 
of the “‘ Society of Friends,’’ carried away in his views on slavery 
by a mistaken philanthropy. Mr. Leggett gives clearly and con- 
sistently to Mr. Morse the conversations he had held with a dis- 
tinguished British official in Mexico, Deputy Commissary-General 
Wilson, a gentleman who, from his position, would not be likely 
to misrepresent the opinions of his principals, nor would Mr. Leg- 
gett, who was an enthusiast on the subject of abolishing slavery, 
be likely to mis-state to Mr. Morse the uttered sentiments of a 
British officer, whose revelations naturally roused his own patriot- 
ism in antagonism to his cherished philanthropic design, and brought 
them in conflict with each other. There are in the circumstances 
of the case, therefore, nothing which can create a suspicion of dis- 
honesty in any of the parties concerned, but on the contrary, 
every thing which entitles their statements to be received as true. 
If doubt be raised in the minds of any, the cause is not in the 
statement of Mr. Morse, nor in the statement of Mr. Leggett ; 
it must rest solely in the statement of General Wilson, and the 
probabilities of the truth of his views and reasoning will receive 
confirmation or refutation from other sources. The subject is of 
too much importance to be dismissed with a sneer or indecent . 
personalities. 

Whether the fierce and reckless sectional strife that has been 
kept up for five and twenty years throughout our land, is the 
natural result of our own professed progress in enlightenment, or 
has been fanned and fed by foreign intrigue for deep political 
ends, is surely a question not to be lightly treated. It certainly 
concerns us to know whether we are not at this moment the vic- 
tims of a deeply-laid foreign scheme, for the quenching of a light 
which, however unconsciously to ourselves, is revealing to the 
European people, as we have believed, the unsound parts of their 
governmental systems. . 

Are, indeed, the revelations of Commissary-General Wilson 
so chimerical ? Have there been no other indications that the 


2 


18 


British Government has not merely indirectly fed the slavery 
agitation in this country, but has zealously, persistently, and di- 
rectly encouraged it in every possible way? Need we more than 
allude to the mission of a Member of Parliament, who, as an 
abolition lecturer, filled the country for a season with excitement, 
and strengthened, if he did not initiate, the wicked system of 
crimination and abuse of our Southern brethren? Were there 
no indications of foreign complicity in the John Brown raid? * 
Who was Colonel Forbes? What did the Stafford House junto 
mean in their ovations to Mrs. Beecher Stowe? Was there no 
political object in this movement, and in the subscriptions raised 
to operate against slavery in this country? Why is America on 
this subject to this hour insulted in the persons of any of her 
citizens who visit England in all circles under the influence of 
this aristocratic clique in Britain? Why the marked favor 
shown in the same circles to the most violent and unprincipled 
abolitionists who visit them from this side of the water? There 
is a political purpose at the bottom of all this, and Gen. Wilson 
does not stand alone in revealing what it is, 

We have come into possession of an article from the highest 
source, published in London some time since, which very distinctly 
states the political object which is to be attained by the British 
Government through the persistent agitation of the slavery ques- 
tion in Great Britain and the United States, and as it is directly 
confirmatory, from an independent source, of Gen. Wilson’s reve- 
_ lations, we will copy it, premising, that it will be remembered 
that a lady traveller from Britain, holding one of the highest 
positions in the Queen’s household, the Hon. Amelia Murray, 
lady in waiting to Her Majesty, visited the United-States in the 


* A very calm and carefully prepared article by a Reporter of the Vew 
York Herald, who visited Canada for the purpose of ascertaining the condi- 
tion of the colored population in Canada, thus states, previous to the 
secession of South Carolina: “ I conversed with a prominent abolitionist in 
Chatham (Canada) holding a public position of trust and honor, who told 
me that the first suggestion of the Harper’s Ferry attack was made to 
Brown by British abolitionists in Chatham, and who assured me that he him- 
self subscribed money to aid Brown in raising men for the service in Ohio 
and elsewhere in the States. That he and his associates looked with expec- 
tation and hope to the day, not far distant, when a disruption of the Union 


would take place.” 


19 


year 1854, travelling extensively at the South as well as the North. 
She examined the condition of African slavery at the South, and 
on her return to England, she published her letters, in which she 
honestly gives her convictions that American Slavery had been 
wholly misconceived and misunderstood by the Stafford House 
junto, since, from her own experience in the United States, she 
was persuaded that the actual status of slavery there had been 
grossly misrepresented. Much excitement was created at Court 
by Miss Murray’s letters, and she was at once dismissed from her 
position near the Queen. This act on the part of the Queen’s 
advisers created a feeling of indignation in certain quarters, and 
Miss Murray had many sympathizers as one persecuted for 
honest opinion’s sake, and for telling the truth. This state of 
feeling made it necessary to give some explanation to the public, 
and the following article was published in the London Atheneum 
of January 26th, 1856, at page 107, bearing intrinsic evidence of 
its emanation from a source near the throne : 


‘A paragraph is passing round the papers in which the names of the 
Queen and her lady-in-waiting, the Hon. Miss Murray, are introduced, con- 
taining some statements which are not quite true. Miss Murray, whose 
efforts in behalf of ragged schools, female emigration, and other philan- 
' thropic movements, have been zealous and constant, has lately been in\the 
United States. 

‘While there she wrote a number of pleasant and graphic letters to her 
friends in London, chiefly to Lady Byron. 

‘“« These letters she has published, as the reader will see in our review col- 
umns, under the title of ‘ Letters from the United States, Cuba, and Canada.’ 

“In the course of her travels in the South Miss Murray’s views of the 
Slavery question began to change, and at the end of fifteen months’ expe- 
rience of America, she felt convinced that Stafford House had closed its 
eyes to one side of the question. This change of view Miss Murray com- 
municated to the Queen, who replied to her lady-in-waiting, if we are rightly 
informed, by some very wise and womanly counsels. Unhappily, the royal 
letter missed its object, and before Miss Murray had the advantage of read- 
ing her august friend’s advice,,she had pledged herself not to observe that 
discreet silence on a most intricate and vexed problem, which is necessary 
in persons holding public situations. 

“Miss Murray has the courage of her opinions; but as she chose to 
take a part in a discussion ¢hat every day threatened 10 REND THE UNION, her 
retirement from the Queen’s household follows naturally. These are the 
simple facts. There was no intention to dedicate the book to Her Majesty. 
Her Majesty never saw the proof-sheets. 


20 


“We cannot suppose that the Queen meant to rebuke Miss Murray, as 
the paragraph makes her, for forming an honest opinion. 

** Miss Murray’s retirement from the Court must be assigned to a POLIT- 
ICAL, not a personal, motive. We see nothing in it save what is creditable 
alike to sovereign and subject.” 


This extract from a London journal of the highest character 
is no ordinary newspaper paragraph. It bears internal evidence 
of its origin directly from head-quarters, and must have the 
weight of a quasi-official document. . 

It is not possible to mistake its meaning nor its significant 
bearing upon the long-settled purpose of Great Britain, in fanning 
the flame of this diabolical Abolition frenzy both in Britain and 
America. <A great measure of State policy is directly named, 
which its inaugurators guard with the utmost jealousy. It isa 
measure which must be carried through reckless of truth. Ro- 
mance, exaggeration, falsehood, are all pressed into the service 
of this Stafford House scheme, and truth of course must not flash 
its fatal light upon these satanic workings. Miss Murray, in her 
honesty, dared to tell the truth, so she must be taunted with the 
“ courage of her opinion.” She must be deposed from her posi- 
tion near the Queen lest the truth might fatally reach the ears 
of her truth-loving sovereign; her letters are to be ignored in the . 
same number of the Athenzeum by the shallow disparagement of 
a sycophantic critic, and all this lest Stafford House should be 
thwarted in its plan of “ rending the Union.” 

The writer uses a cautious phraseology to salve over the act 
of dismissal of Miss Murray, an act that was beginning to excite 
remarks in the English journals, remarks threatening to compro- 
mise even the Queen herself. It was a delicate task to defend 
Her Majesty from imputations of an arbitrary harshness in dis- 
charging Miss Murray, and at the same time to avoid denouncing 
her lady-in-waiting in such terms as not to arouse public sympathy 
in her behalf as one persecuted for opinion’s sake. It must be done 
in a way to satisfy all parties. The writer has adroitly accom- 
plished this part of his task, but it has been at the expense of 
disclosing the secret of the Stafford House camarilla. 

The unpardonable sin of Miss Murray—the crime for which 
she was summarily discharged from the service of the Queen, was 
the venturing to hint, in the expressive language of the Athena- 


21 


um, that “Stafford House had shut its eyes to one side of the 
question” of slavery abolition, and so she had interfered to thwart 
the State policy that was being pursued of “ rending the Union,” 
which project was on the point of consummation—a consumma- 
tion even then looked for “every day.” Can any one doubt, if 
Miss Murray had been weak and dishonest enough to have added 
fresh slanders against Southern society, professedly from her own 
observation, that she would have been rebuked and dismissed, for 
“not observing a discreet silence on this most intricate and 
vexed problem” ? 

And now in view of these facts, is it not time that the scales 
should drop from the eyes of our people throughout the land, 
that they comprehend the reality of the fatal trap into which they 
are hurrying in their blindness ? 

We beseech them, by all the sacred memories of the past, to 
pause now before the door has been irretrievably shut down, and 
this foreign intrigue actually consummated, and calmly reflect 
whither they are going. Is patriotism wholly dead? have we 
been indeed left to the just punishment of our national sins, and 
given over to the rule of passionate, obstinate, furious demagogues? 

Where are the people? why do they sleep when incendiaries 
have fired the house? Why has it been that the denouement of 
this plot of foreign intrigue should be necessary to wake us to a 
sense of its actual existence ? 

We have been accustomed to boast that foreign arms could 
not subjugate us, and while a united people, (united not by force 
but by mutual respect and affection,) our boast (under God) is 
true. Nor will any foreign power attempt it upon a united peo- 
ple, but “divide et impera,” the favorite artifice of despots, dis- 
carded to-day by glorious Italy, is practised upon with success 
here, (with shame be it spoken,) and America in her madness 
succumbs. 

A few more steps urged on by the wicked fanaticism of the day , 
and Ichabod may be written across the blue field of our national 
standard, and then—no eye but God’s can foresee the future. 
“ Carthago delenda est,” will be the ecstatic shout of Stafford 
House, and our light is quenched forever, B. 


Since the above was written, (more than nine months ago,) 


22 


we have noticed the recent remarks of a distinguished member 
of the British aristocracy, who does not hesitate to avow the very 
design which has been charged upon the British Government ; and 
when we consider that this member of the House of Peers, the 
Ear! of Shaftesbury, one of the Stafford House clique, the Presi- 
dent of the British and Foreign Bible Society, is the same noble- 
man who presided at the meeting of British Abolitionists in 
London in July last, convened to present a piece of plate to the 
notorious Dr. Cheever for his efficient labors in fanning the abo- 
lition excitement in this country, and thus directly contributing 
to the consummation of this now avowed political design of Great 
Britain, “of rending the Union,” it would seem that further 
proof was not needed. 

The Earl of Shaftesbury is reported to have said to a gentle- 
man conversing with him on American affairs: 

“T, in common with almost every English statesman, sin- 
cerely desire the rupture of the American Union. It has been 
the policy of England to brook no rivalry, especially in the direc- 
tion of her own greatness. We justly fear the commerical and 
political rivalry of the United States. With a population of thirty 
millions, they will soon, if not checked, overshadow Great Brit- 
ain. We cannot look upon such a monstrous growth without 
apprehension.”* 3 

True words! my lord, you have epitomized with great preci- 
sion and conciseness the inner political workings of the British 
aristocratic mind for many long years. As a political end, the 
destruction of a rival, this end to be attained regardless of any 
other principle, moral or political, than the material glory of 
England, or rather, of the British aristocracy, “ the rupture of 
the American Union” was a measure wisely adapted to that end, 
and the means adroitly chosen to destroy your trans-Atlantic 
rival; but while we accord wisdom in the choice of means for 
destroying us, to those who are jealous of our growing strength, 
what shall we say of you, countrymen, North and South, who find 
yourselves caught in this foreign snare? If shame can lead 
to repentance, if it can calm the raging of this horrible fratricidal 
war, and lead each section to lay down its arms under the in- 
fluence of a common indignation, against a common enemy, who 


* See Note A at the end of the pamphlet. 


23 


has deceived us both, we may yet attain to union, and to strength 
again, better guarded than ever heretofore, against the wiles of for- 
eign duplicity. Shall it be done ? 





For the Journal of Commerce, 


THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION THE OBJECT 
OF BRITISH INTRIGUES. 


In my communication published in your journal of January 
13th, I gave your readers evidence which I considered conclusive, 
that the dissolution of the Union was the consummation of a 
well-devised plot by Great Britain, through the agitation of the 
slavery question. I well know that such an announcement startled 
many minds, and some incredulity has been manifested, notwith- 
standing the strength of the evidence of its truth. If further 
evidence is needed, let me now adduce it from the antecedents 
of British policy. There are official documents in the department 
of State deposited there fifty years ago, which every citizen would 
do well to review. The subject of British intrigues was made 
the occasion of a special Message by President Madison on the 
9th of March, 1812, three months before the declaration of war. 
Your readers desirous of seeing these documents in full will find 
them in Benton’s “ Abridgment of the Debates of Congress,” 
vol. iv., from page 506 onward. 

It seems that in the year 1809, an emissary of the British 
Government, John Henry, a gentleman of education and address, 
was sent to Boston under the sanction of the Governor-General of 
Canada, Sir James Craig, sustained by the Home Government, by 
Lord Liverpool, Robert Peel, Sir George Prevost and others, 
for the purpose of taking advantage of the high party excitement 
between Federalists and Democrats at that time, for the purpose 
(in the language of President Mage) “of fomenting disaffec- 
tion,” and “ destroying the Union” and “forming the eastern 
part thereof into a political connection with Great Britain.” 
Although his mission was unsuccessful, because, as he himself 
stated, “ he found it an unpopular topic,” his letters demonstrate 
with a clearness which cannot be questioned, the settled intent 
of the British Government, at that early day, to divide the Union, 
as a measure deemed of ‘the greatest importance and advantage 


24 


to British interests. His correspondenee shows that he faithfully 
earried out his instructions, but as success did not attend his 
efforts, the promised reward (a lucrative office) was withheld from 
him. Piqued at receiving the cold shoulder from the British 
officials whom he had served, he sought his revenge by revealing 
the plot to our Government, putting into the hands of the Secre- 
tary of State his correspondence with the British Government. 
With the character of the whole transaction—with its morality 
or immorality; with Henry’s motives for betraying the confidence 
reposed in him ; with its success or ill success, or with its impli- 
cations upon any persons or parties of that date, we have now 
nothing to do; they are all matters which may be left out of 
consideration, as they do not affect the reality of the one great 
fact which these documents establish. This great fact stands 
out clear and prominent, that Great Britain did at that day em- 
ploy an emissary to foment disaffection in the country, and this 
for the purpose of dividing the Union. A few extracts from 
Henry’s letters will demonstrate this fact beyond dispute. On 
his way to Boston, writing from Burlington, Vt., Feb. 14, 1809, 
Henry says: “In what mode this resistance (to the Administra- _ 
tion) will first show itself is probably not yet determined upon; 
and may, in some measure, depend upon the reliance that the 
leading meu may place upon assurances of support from his 
Majesty's representatives in Canada; and as I shall be on the 
spot to tender this, whenever the moment arrives that it can be 
done with effect, there is no doubt that all their measures may 
be made subordinate to the intentions of his Majesty’s Govern- 
ment. Great pains are taken by the men of talent and intelli- 
gence to confirm the fears of the common people, as to the con- 
eurrence of the Southern Democrats in the projects of France ; 
and every thing tends to encourage the belief that the Dissotv- 
T10N of the ConrepERAcy will be accelerated by the spirit which 
now: actuates both political parties.” 

In a letter dated Boston, March 7, 1809, Henry says: ‘“‘ What 
permanent connection between Great Britain and this section of 
the Republic would grow out of a civil commotion, such as might 
be expected, no person is prepared to describe; but it seems that 
a strict alliance must result of necessity. At present the oppo- 
sition party confine their calculations merely to resistance, and I 


25 


can assure you that, at this moment, they do not freely entertain 
the project of withdrawing the Eastern States from the Union, 
finding it a very unpopular topic ; although a course of events, 
such as [ have already mentioned, would inevitably produce an 
incurable alienation of the New England from the Southern 
States.” 

Again, in a letter dated Boston, March 9, 1809: ‘“ The Gov- 
ernment of the United States would probably complain, and Bona- 
parte become peremptory; but even that would only tend to 
render the opposition in the Northern States more resolute, and 
accelerate the dissolution of the Confederacy.” 

In a letter dated Boston, March 13, 1809, he says: “ Bona- 
parte, whose passions are too hot for delay, will probably compel 
this Government to decide which of the two great belligerents is 
to be its enemy. To bring about a separation of the States, un- 
der distinct and separate Governments, is an affair of more un- 
certainty, and, however desirable, cannot be effected Bur BY A 
SERIES OF ACTS AND A LONG-CONTINUED POLICY TENDING TO IRRITATE 
THE SOUTHERN AND CONCILIATE THE NortHERN PEOPLE. The for- 
mer are agricultural, the latter a commercial people. The mode 
of cherishing and depressing either is too obvious to require illus- 
tration. This, I am aware, is an object of much interest in 
Great Britain, as it would forever secure the integrity of his 
Majesty’s possessions on this continent, and make the two Ciov- 
ernments, or whatever number the present confederacy might 
form into, as much subject to the influence of Great Britain as 
her colonies can be rendered. But it is an object only to be at- 
tained by slow and circumspect progression, and requires for 
its consummation more attention to the affairs which agitate and 
excite parties in this country, than Great Britain has yet be- 
stowed upon it. I lament the repeal of the embargo, because wt 
was calculated to accelerate the progress of these States towards 
a revolution that would have put an end to the only republic 
that remains to prove that a government founded on political 
equality can exist in a season of trial and difficulty, or is calcu- 
lated to insure either security or happiness to a people.” 

In a letter, March 29, 1809, he says: 

“It should, therefore, be the peculiar care of Great Britain 
to foster divisions between the North and the South, and by suc- 


26 


ceeding in this, she may carry into effect her own projects in 
Europe, with a total disregard of the Democrats of this country.” 

On May 5th, 1809, he commences his letter thus: 

“ Although the recent changes that have occurred quiet all 
apprehensions of war, and consequently lessen all hope of a sep- 
aration of the States,” &c. 

Enough has heen quoted to substantiate the fact that the 
deliberate design of Great Britain fifty years ago was to foment 
divisions between the two geographical sections of the country, in 
order to effect a special purpose, and that purpose the dissolution 
of the Union. 

If it be asked how was the development of this plot received 
by the Government? a quotation or two from the speeches in 
Congress upon this topic will show. 

Mr. Gholson, of Virginia, said: ‘ This communication,” 
from the President, “ demonstrated as matter of fact, what had 
heretofore remained only speculation and conjecture, that the 
British Government has long meditated THE SEPARATION OF 
THESE States ; and what is more, that they have actually attempted 
the execution of this wicked design, and have endeavored to con- 
vert our own citizens into traitors.” 

Mr. Troup, of Georgia, said: “The documents have a most 
important bearing. They establish the fact that a foreign Govern- 
ment, on the eve of hostility with us, has for some time past em- 
ployed an agent to foment division among us; and another fact, 
which, considered in connection with other circumstances, is of 
great importance. They show the deep-rooted hostility of this 
foreign Power to our Republican Government and liberties— 
a hostility which could stop at nothing short of a DISMEMBERMENT 
OF THE COUNTRY.” 

Mr. Fisk, of Vermont, said: “Why, sir, can gentlemen 
seriously doubt the truth of the facts stated by this Mr. Henry, 
when they have it from the highest authority that the former 
British Minister, Mr. Erskine, while here, at this very time, was 
in the same business this Henry was sent to perform?” Mr. Fisk 
then quotes an official letter from Mr. Erskine to his Government, 
dated Feb. 15, 1809: “The ultimate consequences of such dif- 
ferences and jealousies, arising between the Eastern and Southern 
States, would inevitably tend to a dissolution of the Union, which 


27 


has been for some time talked of, and has of late, as I have heard, 
been seriously contemplated by many of the leading people of the 
Eastern division.” 

Mr. Macon, the veteran statesman of North Carolina, said: 
“ Nothing can be more true than that these papers do prove that 
Great Britain has not yet ceased her attempts to disturb the 
peace of this nation.” “As to this man, he is just such an one 
as the British usually employ for these purposes; he is one of 
their own agents.” ‘The question is, Has he told the truth ? 
I verily believe he has. I understood enough of the papers, as 
read, to know that he was the Agent of the British Government, 
sent here to sow dissension, and that was enough for me. So long 
as we are governed by interest, mutual wants, or common sense, 
so.long shall we continue united. We are placed in such a 
situation that we ought to love each other, and we always should, 
did not mad passions sometimes run away with us.” “ We 
supply each other’s wants; we ought never to dream of separation. 
And when these messengers of hell are sent here shall we not 
look at them?” b 

No comment can present the fact in a stronger light, that 
Great Britain seriously determined, by fomenting dissensions in 
the country, to dissolve the Union of the States, at that date of 
our history. Foiled in her attempts then, and with the same, 
‘if not a greater interest to consummate the same project, is it 
reasonable to suppose she has abandoned it, or is it not much 
more reasonable to conclude that she will attempt to compass her 
ends by other means? It is the maxim of a profound statesman 
of the last age—Lord Shelburn—that “in politics none must 
have a power joined to an interest to do mischief, whatever be 
the purity of their original intentions.” We may adopt the 
maxim with profit, and leave out altogether the qualification of 
“ purity of original intentions.” The subject is prolific of thought, 
and is commended to the reflection of every truly American heart 
from Maine to the Rio Grande. B. 


The “ disclaimer ” referred to in the following communication, 
is disposed of by our correspondent B., to whom we have shown 
the article, as our readers will perceive in the present number of 
our journal.—LZditor Journal of Commerce. 


28 


For the Journal of Commerce. 
BRITISH INTRIGUES TO DISSOLVE THE UNION. 


Messrs, Eprrors :—Your correspondent B. in your issue of 3d 
inst. has given certain extracts from the correspondence and dis- 
closures of Capt. John Henry, in 1809, to show that the British 
Government at that time were intent on separating the United 
States, So far as this dishonorable man is concerned, it only shows 
that he was desirous of such an issue to secure to himself the re- 
wards of aspy. Your correspondent in fairness ought to have stated 
that the British Government through its Minister at Washington 

/ promptly disavowed any complicity in the transaction. On the 
11th of March the British Minister, Mr. Foster, sent to the Sec- 
retary of State the following disclaimer, which was transmitted 
to Congress by Mr. Madison two days after, and thus settled the 
matter. 

Wasuineton, March 11, 1812. 
_ The undersigned, his Britannic Majesty’s Envoy Extraordi- 
nary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States, has read 
in the public papers of this city, with the deepest concern, the 
~ Message sent by the President of the United States to Congress 
on the 9th instant, and the documents which accompanied it. In 
the utter ignorance of the undersigned as to all the circumstances 
alluded to in those documents he can only disclaim most sol- 
emnly, on his own part, the having had any knowledge whatever 
. of the existence of such a mission or of such transactions as the 
communication of Mr. Henry refers to, and express his convie- 
tion that from what he knows of those branches of his Majesty’s 
Government with which he is in the habit of having intercourse, 
no countenance whatever was given by them to any schemes 
hostile to the internal tranquillity of the United States. The 
undersigned, however, cannot but trust that the American Gov- 
ernment and the Congress of the United States will take into 
consideration the character cf the individual who has made the 
communication in question, and will suspend any further judg- 
ment on its merits until the circumstances shall have been made 
known to his Majesty’s Government. The undersigned requests 
the Secretary of State to accept the assurances of his highest 

consideration. [Signed] Aveustus J. Fosrer. 
Respectfully, 
: ANGLICUS. 


29 
For the Journal of Commerce. 


THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION, A PLOT OF 
THE BRITISH ARISTOCRACY. 


Messrs. Eprrors :—The facts given in my last communica- 
tion, demonstrating from official records that the attempt was 
made by Great Britain in 1809 to foment divisions between the 
North and South, confessedly for the purpose of Dissolving the 
Union, ought to be sufficient to lead the reflecting in the country 
deeply to ponder the question whether we are not now the dupes 
of another and more successful intrigue from the same quarter. 
Iam much obliged to your correspondent Anglicus for alluding 
to the pretended disclaimer of the British Government through 
its Minister, for he will see that irrefutable evidence is herein 
brought forward of the complicity of the British Government in 
that disgraceful intrigue to rend our Union, One only attempt 
to gainsay the facts of Henry’s disclosures has ever been made, 
and this will need but a moment’s attention to show its futility. 
The British Minister, Mr. Foster, as Angiicus has shown, did send 
to the Secretary of State on the 11th of March, 1812, a Disclaimer, 
in consequence of the Message of the President, of March 9th, 
accompanying Henry’s disclosures. Were this, indeed, an official 
denial of the British Government of any participation in these 
disgraceful intrigues, the character of the whole transaction 
would have been essentially modified. But how stands the 
case? It is not a disclaimer of the charge against the British 
Government. It is a meagre document of a few lines, merely dis- 
claiming “on his own part having had any knowledge whatever 
of the existence of such a mission, and expressing his conviction 
that from what he knows of those branches of his Majesty’s 
Government with whom he is in the habit of having inter- 
course, no countenance was given by them to any schemes hostile 
to the internal tranquillity of the United States;” and then he 
“asks a suspension of judgment of its merits until the circum- 
stances shall have been made known to his Majesty’s Govern- 
ment.” This is all that has ever been said officially by way of 
explanation on the part of the British Government, from that 
day to this. That Mr. Foster did not personally know of such 
a mission may well be conceded without affecting the truth of 
Mr. Henry’s disclosures one iota, or disproving the complicity of 


30 


the British Government in them; and as to the suspension of 
judgment requested, till explanation should be given by his 
Majesty’s Government, that explanation has never been made to 
this hour. We shall presently see what course “ his Majesty’s 
Government ” pursued when the subject was brought to their 
notice. 

But how was this matter viewed by President Madison and 
the Committee of Foreign Relations? If this disclaimer had 
any weight with them, their subsequent action will certainly 
show it. : 

Five days after the disclaimer, to wit, on March 16th, the re- 
port of the Committee of Foreign Relations, to whom was re- 
ferred the President’s Message of 9th of March, with these dis- 
closures of Henry, contains the following remarks :—“ It may be 
satisfactory to the House to be informed that the original papers, 
with the evidences relating to them in possession of the Execu- 
tive, were submitted to their examination, and were such as ful- 
ly to satisfy the Committee of their genuineness.” And again: 
“The transaction disclosed by the President’s Message presents 
to the mind of the Committee conclusive evidence that the Brit- 
ish Government, at a period of peace, and during the most 
friendly professions, have been deliberately and perfidiously 
pursuing measures to divide these States, and to involve our 
citizens in all the guilt of treason and the horrors of a civil war 
—a proceeding, which at all times and among all nations, has 
been considered as one of the most aggravated character, and 
which ought to be regarded by us with the deepest abhorrence.” 

It is worthy of notice that these very intrigues, to divide the 
Union, were set forth by the President in his Message to Con- 
gress, of June Ist, 1812, among the “injuries and indignities” 
which demanded the declaration of war with Great Britain in 
1812; the President says: “It has since come into proof, that 
at the very moment when the public Minister was holding the 
language of friendship, and inspiring confidence in the sincerity 
of the negotiation with which he was charged, a secret agent of 
his Government was employed in intrigues, having for their 
object a subversion of our Government, and a DISMEMBERMENT OF 
our HAPPY Union.” 

Subsequently, the Committee of Foreign Relations, (of which 


‘31 


Mr. Calhoun was Chairman,) to which Committee this Message 
was referred, thus adverts to these intrigues :—“‘ Your Commit- 
tee would be much gratified if they could close here the detail of 
British wrong; but it is their duty to recite another act of still 
greater malignity than any ef those which have already been 
brought to your view. Zhe attempt to pIsmMEMBER OUR Union, 
and overthrow our excellent Constitution by a secret mission, 
the object of which was to foment discontent and excite insur- 
rection against the constituted authorities and laws of the nation, 
as lately disclosed by the agent employed in it, affords full proof . 
that there is no bounds to the hostility of the British Govern- 
ment towards the United States; no act however unjustijiable, 
which it would not commit to accomplish their ruin. This at- 
tempt excites the greater horror, from the consideration that it 
was made while the United States and Great Britain were at 
peace, and an amicable negotiation was depending between them 
for the accommodation of their differences.” 

The Committee, after saying “ they feel no hesitation in ad- 
vising resistance by force,” close their report with these words: 
“ Your Committee recommend an immediate appeal to arms;”. 
Congress accepted this report, and the Bill declaring war against 
Great Britain was passed. | 

In compliance with the request of the British Minister that 
we “suspend judgment until the circumstances shall have been 
made known to his Majesty’s Government,” and for the satisfac- 
tion of your correspondent Anglicus, let us glance a moment at 
the proceedings of the British Government, when this subject of 
Henry’s disclosures reached England. 

On May 5, 1812, Lord Holland, in the House of Lords, gave 
notice of a motion to call for the correspondence in relation to 
this Intrigue. If the Government is innocent, there can be no 
reason for withholding the correspondence; if guilty, we look for 
a strenuous effort to suppress inquiry. Instead of seconding the 
call, there was so much fluttering in the Ministerial ranks that 
it became at once evident that a tender spot was touched. The 
Ministry vigorously opposed the motion under various trifling 
pretexts, while they gave a feeble disclaimer of participation in 
Henry’s mission, endeavoring to throw the obloquy of the trans- 
action upon the late Governor-General of Canada, Sir James 


32 


Craig, who had then but recently deceased. Lord Darnley con- 
tended that such disclaimer on the part of Government was not 
satisfactory; he said: “ He could not but remember that this re- 
nunciation of all participation rested solely upon their assertion, 
while presumptive evidence was very strong against them.” 

Lord Lauderdale said, in view of what the Ministers had ad- 
vanced, “ what security had the United States that there was not 
another Captain Henry pursuing a similar conduct in that country 
at this moment ?” 

Lord Holland closed the debate; he said: “ His whole object 
in making the motion was to refute the charge brought against 
the English Government if it could be done, and if not, to punish 
those with whom the guilt lay; but in refusing all inquiry, 
they were giving the world no answer to that charge. They 
might say in that house it was partly false and partly true, but 
such allegation was no solemn and authentic disavowal to Amer- 
ica or to Europe, and 1r REMAINED, THEREFORE, UNREFUTED.” The 
House then divided ; 27 voted in favor of producing the corre- 
spondence, and 73 voted against its production, leaving a majority 
of 46 in favor of the ministerial attempt to hush up the matter. 
Every one can make his own inference on this result. B. 





For the Journal of Commerce. 
THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION THE OBJECT 
OF BRITISH INTRIGUES. 


Messrs. Eprrors:—I think I have shown beyond dispute in 
my former communications that one of the causes distinctly set 
forth by the President and by Congress for the declaration of war 
between Great Britain and the United States in 1812 was this dis- 
honorable attempt on the part of the former Government, through 
its secret agents, to foment divisions and create irritations, between 
the Northern and Southern sections of the country, and this for 
the express purpose of dismembering the Union. Great-Britain 
was directly charged with this attempt by the United States Gov- 
ernment, and the suppression of all inquiry on the subject in the 
British Parliament, when the Ministry of that day were called 
upon by Lord Holland in the House of Peers to clear themselves 
from that charge, stamps forever the fact that to this day, (to 
use the words of Lord Holland,) “ the charge remains unrefuted.” 


‘ 


33 


With this charge, then, fully admitted and established, it becomes 
a matter of importance to us to inquire, Ist. Whether the re- 
sults of that war were calculated to lessen or to increase the de- 
sire for the consummation of the British Aristocratic conspiracy 
against this country? Policy would naturally dictate both de- 
lay and caution in any measures to carry out their aim of “ rend 
ing the Union” which might excite jealousy or suspicion on our 
part, but assuredly, the naval prowess of the Union, so strikingly 
prominent and so firn:ly established, by that contest, was a marked 
feature in the history of the war not calculated to allay the fears 
or the jealousies of that jealous maritime power. Is it unreason- 
able to suppose that the unscrupulous leaders of that proud aris- 
tocracy were fully aware of the causes of the failure of the con- 
spiracy which they had intrusted to Henry’s management? They 
must have become aware from the disclosures he made to them 
that the party differences of Federalists and Democrats, so 
acrimoniously contested at that period, were not of a sufficiently 
Sectional or profound a character to accomplish their policy of 
dividing the Union. Each of these political parties, into which 
the whole country was divided, had their adherents both at the 
North and at the South; their party differences had reference to 
common, not to sectional interests, and consequently a geographi- 
cal or sectional division on the basis of those party differences 
was simply impracticable. And 2d. Were not the wise sugges- 
tions of Captain Henry—suggestions the result of his experience 
in his endeavors to promote their wishes—worthy of their serious 
consideration? He distinctly suggests to them a course for future 
operations, which we also would do well to consider, when he says 
to them, “To bring about a separation of the States, under dis- 
tinct and independent governments, however desirable, cannot be 
effected but by a series of acts and a long-continued policy 
tending To 1rRITATE THE SOUTHERN AND CONCILIATE THE NorTHERN 
PEOPLE;”’ and again, “it is an object only to be attained by slow 
and circumspect progression.” | 

In view of these suggestions of their agent, is it not worth 
while to inquire whether there are any indications of an adoption 
by this same jealous power of the policy thus suggested to them ? 

A general investing a fortress which he is intent on capturing, 
does not ordinarily retire because of a single repulse from an im- 


3 


a. . 


34 


practicable point, especially when his spies have discovered and 
reported to him a vulnerable point requiring only a slower and 
more circumspect sapping and mining. 

It is, however, of little comparative importance to know 
whether the subsequent action of the Aristocracy to “rend the 
Union,” wag, or was not, a consequence of these sagacious sug- 
gestions of their emissary. It is of far more importance to ascer- 
tain whether a policy in exact and palpable accord with his sug- 
gestions has, or has not, for some fifty years, been in operation. 

Let it be kept in mind that the main characteristic of that 
policy recommended as most likely to bring about “a separation 
of the States,” is “a policy tending to 1rRITATE THE SOUTHERN 
and conciliate the Northern people.” Now, on searching the 
records of our history for the basis of such a policy, a sectional 
subject of such an irritating character as shall answer this pur- 
pose, is there one which could be found by the managers of the 
intrigue, better adapted to create irritation of the South, than 
the subject of African slavery? 

It was a profound remark of an eminent British statesman, 
that “in a concern so full of duplicity as politics, possibility is 
to be regarded with as much jealousy as certainty, for caution 
will be late when opportunity for using caution is at an end.” 
Let us then look in the direction whence this possibility, not to 
say certainty, may be discovered. 

Not to distract by bringing to light many strong and coinci- 
dent indications of the inauguration of this policy, which from 
the nature of the enterprise would be artfully covered up, we 
come at once upon an historic fact strikingly similar to Captain 
Henry’s intrigue of 1809. 

Tn the year 1835 there came to this country an » Mnplisionea 
well fitted by nature and education to inaugurate the policy of 
irritation. This man was George Thompson. He was an 
adept in the popular phrases of our own demagogues, possessed 
of that sort of eloquence which charms a certain class of shallow 
but excitable minds, well versed in the vocabulary of denuncia- 
tion, personally proscriptive; he could talk glibly of freedom of 
discussion and equal rights, and fulminate bloodthirsty curses 
against slaveholders. He came under the cover of the Anti- 
Slavery Societies of Great Britain recommended to the Garrison 


35 


breed of Abolitionists. The American Anti-Slavery Society had 
only two years before his advent to this country laid down the 
new, unscriptural, and disastrous dogma that “all Slavery is 
sin,” thus giving a lever of great power for just such an emissary 
as had been sent to take advantage of the dreadful mistake. So 
recently had the untenable dogma been in operation when Thomp- 
son arrived, that the Anti-Slavery Societies of New England 
were not yet wrought up to the degree of fanatic zeal, which in 
this sad hour has culminated in our times in bloodshed and 
crime ; the mass of members were yet unprepared for fully car- 
rying out their new and fatal programme. The false Christian 
and moral philosophy of the day had not yet sufficiently imbued 
their minds, or the minds of the community at large, with the 
principles of a plausible but really shallow humanitarianism, and 
so the bold doctrines of this foreign emissary grated harshly even 
on their ears. When he addressed them in Boston, such was his 
impudent and intemperate language that there were cries of “we 
want to hear no foreigners lecture us,” “he has issued nothing 
but one tissue of falsehoods against the South,” and even one of 
the delegates to the meeting from the Baptists of England was so 
disgusted with Thompson's denunciations, that “he rose to ex- 
press his regret at the course of remark in which he had in- 
dulged.” The meeting was excited, and for the most part 
indignant. Wherever Thompson went throughout the country, 
the same scenes followed; the staple of his public speeches was 
denunciation of the South and slaveholders ; he adhered strictly 
to the programme of “ irritating the Southern people ;” and this 
end was attained by the intentional notoriety which his ultraism 
gained for all that he said. He visited Theological Seminaries, 
and conversed with their students to indoctrinate them in his pro- 
gramme of irritation. The more ultra the doctrine the more 
excitement. And so to a student at Andover he distinctly de- 
clares that the kind of moral instruction which ought to be en- 
joyed by the slaves, was, “ THAT EVERY SLAVE SHOULD BE TAUGHT 
TO CUT HIS MASTER’s THROAT.” When this was published, the 
excitement was so great as to endanger his safety, and he did not 
hesitate to deny that he had said it. The issue of that denial 
was the production of irrefragable proof of his having said it, and 
also of his prevarication. He became so obnoxious to the con- 


36 


servative part of the community that it was feared that violence 
would be committed upon him. The Boston Ad/as in Oct., 1835, 
says of Thompson: “ We deprecate all attempts at violence 
against this individual, but we think that he has severely tried 
the patience of our fellow-citizens, and done full enough to dis- 
turb the peace and good order of the community. How much 
longer can we bear and forbear? A-mountebank who in the ex- 
ercise of his vocation should produce similar infractions of the 
peace would be taken up as a vagrant, or abated as a nuisance.” 
About the same time, a riot in Boston was attempted in conse- 
quence of Thompson’s proceedings, and was not dispersed, al- 
though the Mayor assured the mob that Thompson was not in the 
city. He had fled into the country and concealed himself, while 
his friend Garrison was seized and led about the streets with a 
halter around his neck. , 

All this was making capital for Mr. Thompson’s principals on 
the other side of the water; the irritating part of the process 
was in successful operation. 

We need not follow the course of this emissary in the United 
States further than to add a convincing proof of his success, 
in conjunction with his abolition associates, in “ irritating the 
Southern people,” by circulating tracts of an irritating and in- 
cendiary character at the South. 

President Jackson, in his message to Congress of Dee. 7, 
1835, says:—‘‘I must also invite your attention to the painful 
excitements in the South, by attempts to circulate through the 
mails inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, 
in prints and in various sorts of publications, calculated to stimu- 
late them to insurrection, and to produce all the horrors of a ser- 
vile war.” ; * * * . me 

“Tt is fortunate for the country that the good sense, the 
generous feeling, and the deep-rooted attachment of the people of 
the non-slaveholding States to the Union, and their fellow-citizens 
of the same blood in the South, have given so strong and impres- 
sive a tone to the sentiments entertained against the proceedings 
of the misguided persons who have engaged in these unconstitu- 
tional and wicked attempts, and especially against THE EMIS- 
SARIES FROM FOREIGN PARTS who have dared to interfere in this 
matter, as to authorize the hope that those attempts will no 


37 


longer be persisted in. * * * I would, therefore, call the 
special attention of Congress to the subject, and respectfully sug- 
gest the propriety of passing such a law as will prohibit, under 
severe penalties, the circulation in the Southern States, through 
the mail, of incendiary publications intended to instigate the 
slaves to insurrection.” : 

Captain Henry’s efforts, in his similar but abortive effort for 
dismembering the Union in 1809, were to have been rewarded by 
a Judgeship in Canada ; this we learn incidentally from the De- 
bates in Parliament. The British Government must doubtless 
have felt strongly chagrined at the faw« pas they had committed 
in Henry’s case in not fulfilling their promises to him, and so 
driving him, in revenge, to divulge the whole plot to the United 
States Government. They were not likely to commit the same 
error twice, in their persistent efforts to “foment divisions” in 
the United States. The reward given to Mr. George Thompson 
for his efforts to irritate the Southern people, are not among the 
items recorded in the expenses of the Government, but the reward 
was nevertheless soon manifest. 

In Nov., 1835, Thompson had returned to England. Let us 
glance a moment at his reception there. The President’s Mes- 
sage, in which, though not named, Thompson was as clearly desig- 
nated as if he had been, must have reached England about a month 
after Thompson’s return. If Thompson’s conduct in the United 
States was so repulsive, and sé notorious as to be made the sub- 
ject of a paragraph in the President’s Message, it could scarcely 
have escaped the notice of the political community of Great 
Britain, and some explanation ought to have been given to the 
United States. Mr. Thompson, on the contrary, at once steps 
into the political arena, and we find him a contestant for a seat 
in Parliament from the Tower Hamlets. We know the influence 
that secures a seat in the Commons. Had Mr. Thompson’s no- 
torious course of outrage on the feelings of at least one whole 
section of this country and nine-tenths of the other section, been 
distasteful or obnoxious to the Aristocracy of Great Britain, it 
would have been next to impossible that he could have been 
elected. Nevertheless he was elected. Captain Henry stipulated 
for a Judgeship in Canada, and being refused, betrays the Con- 
spirators. It amounts quite to demonstration that Thompson’s 


38 


price was a seat in Parliament ; he performed his foreign service 
to the satisfaction of his principals; for the Southern people 
were roused to intense indignation; and he returned home to 
receive his reward, an M. P. affixed to his otherwise obscure 
name. 

Whether the demonstration we have given, that we are the 
dupes of a long-concocted and skilfully planned intrigue of the 
British aristocracy, will have any effect to allay our irritated sec- 
tional feeling, and thus dissolve the diabolical spell which keeps 
us from Union, is more than can now be. predicted. There is 
food here for reflection, deep, dispassionate, serious reflection. 

B. 


NOTE A. 


The expressions attributed to Lord Shaftesbury, on p. 22, have 
in substance been lately denied by that nobleman in the following note 
to Mr. Weed: 


“ FEBRUARY 20, 1862. 

“Dear Mr. Weep: * * * * Be so good as to read the en- 
closed letter to me from Philadelphia, and then return it to me. It is 
one, and a sample, of many that I receive on the same subject. My 
reply is uniform: I have made no such speeches, attended no meeting, 
and have neither said nor thought any thing so foolish and mischievous 
as the contents of that paragraph. 

“Your faithful servant, 
‘¢ SHAFTESBURY.” 


. This denial embraces several particulars, and is fruitful in impor- 
tant suggestions. I have no wish to deprive the noble Earl of any 
benefit he may personally derive from his pronouncing the sentiments 
attributed to him, in his alleged conversation with an American gen- 
tleman, foolish, etc. They were eminently so in every aspect, and, 
however ambiguous in the intended application of the term “ foolish,” 
whether folly was attributable to the idea that the aristocracy desired 
the dismemberment of the American Union, or, what is more in con- 
sonance with reason, attributable to the imprudent avowal of this well- 
known sentiment of that aristocracy, folly, in the sense of a violation 
of moral precepts, is clearly stamped on both categories. 

But Lord Shaftesbury distinctly and unqualifiedly asserts that he has 
attended no meeting. Is the account, then, of the meeting held in 
London on the 24th of July, 1861, at which meeting Lord Shaftesbury 
is reported to have presided, and which was convened to present to the 
notorious Dr. Cheever a piece of plate, a fiction? Was it not the ex- 
press purpose of that meeting to strengthen the hands and encourage 
the hearts of the fanatics on this side of the water, whose unchristian, . 


40 


misguided zeal, and infidel ravings, for some thirty years, have at length 
produced their natural and long-predicted fruits, to wit, a savage, re- 
lentless, bloody, fratricidal war? It is a melancholy sight to see a 
nobleman of such prominence as Lord Shaftesbury, carried away by 
the sophistry which prevails around him, lending the influence of his 
name and position to fan the flame of civil war in a Christian country 
among Christian brethren. He was chairman of the meeting, and is 
represented to have said, among other things, that ‘‘ Englishmen had 
so great an idea of individual liberty, that it never entered into their 
minds to argue the question ; and any man expressing a doubt on the 
subject would be looked upon as a fool or a beast.” Let us look at 
this plausible sophism of individual liberty, extraordinary as coming 
from a leading member of the English aristocracy. If individual lib- 
erty, under any and all circumstances, (for this is the unqualified asser- 
tion,) is a right so certainly true and good, it ought to be capable of 
clear demonstration ; arguing the question can do it no harm; it should 
be fixed on the basis of sound reason and Scripture, and thus should 
not fear discussion ; above all, it should be so carefully stated as not to 
be liable to perversion and abuse, through any misunderstanding of its 
exact import, when practically applied. As stated by Lord Shaftes- 
bury, we understand him to accept without qualification the doctrine 
of the American Declaration of Independence, as construed by the 
fanaticism of the day, that every individual man has ‘an inalienable 
right to liberty ;” and he affirms that this is a doctrine now so well 
established in the English mind, that no argument on the subject pro 
or con would be listened to, and that any one “ expressing any doubt 
on the subject would be esteemed a fool ora beast.” This is strong 
language, nor ought we to doubt that Lord Shaftesbury spoke the con- 
scientious convictions of his mind. But at the risk of being placed in 
the unenviable categories of a fool or a beast, I will venture to doubt 
the soundness of this sweeping, unqualified axiom,.and also to say that 
the noble Earl himself will shrink from the logical restlts of his ill- 
considered postulate. And first: Do reason and common sense sanc- 
tion the allowance of unqualified individual liberty to every human 
being? Is the child allowed unrestricted liberty? To uphold the 
axiom, as it is asserted, in its unqualified integrity, the reply must be, 
yes. Is his Lordship prepared to say, yes? I will not believe that he 
will so unqualifiedly take this position, but, as a rational man, particu- 
larly in its logical consequences to his caste, will say that a child’s lib- 
erty is of course restrained; that every child that comes into the 
world is, and must of necessity be, under restraint; that, instead of 
being born into liberty, he is born into slavery. It is, in fact, a rule 
without an exception. Slavery, the subjection of one’s will to the 


41 


will of another, since the fall of man, is the rule, and not liberty. I 
speak of a fact so notorious that the ‘ fool and beast ” alone will ignore 
it. This great fact, that slavery since the fall is the normal condition 
of all mankind, lies at the basis of all government, and is recognized 
in the laws of every civilized nation on the globe. If the law restrains 
a child’s liberty, and forbids his doing certain acts, until he is of age, 
is he not a slave to the extent of his privation of liberty until he is of 
age? At the age of twenty-one he is, in common universal parlance, 
Jree ; what, then, was he previous to becoming of age? 

The noble Lord will not deny the facts. What say reason and — 
common sense as to the moral character of the facts? Is it right or 
is it not, that the individual should be uniformly restrained of his lib- 
erty until heis of mature age? I must believe that Lord Shaftesbury 
is not prepared to abrogate the human laws that impose restraint upon 
minors, and for the reason that his own benevolent instincts recognize 
a benevolent necessity for this restraint; it is benevolence to the child 
to restrain his liberty, and benevolence to society in order to protect 
the community against the inexperienced, heedless, or corrupt acts of 
an inferior portion of its members. Reason and the universal opinion 
and action of mankind sanction this restraint ; and when we bring the 
whole matter to the test of the supreme arbiter of moral controversy, 
the Bible, the reason for restraint is set forth in such a clear light that 
none but an infidel will ignore its decisions. Quotations from the Bi- 
ble to sustain the authority and benevolence of restraint upon children, 
are certainly superfluous to the President of the British and Foreign 
Bible Society. 

- The simple fact, that the Bible not merely sanctions but enjoins 
subjection to authority, would of itself be sufficient to compel our as- 
sent, even if the reason of the demand were not apparent; but in this 
case the reason is obvious at a glance. Man, since the fall, is a corrupt 
and selfish being, sensual, devoid of holiness, low and debased in his 
appetites, and by nature fit only for destruction, and, aside from God’s 
merciful interference, hopelessly lost. Can such beings live together 
in society, with their discordant, repellant propensities and fierce de- 
sires, in unregulated, perpetual antagonism? To unassisted human 
reason a benevolent solution of this question seems impossible. But 
God’s wisdom in the great plan of redeeming fallen man has devised 
and ordained government, or the rule of the superior over the inferior, 
as one of his benevolent means for accomplishing that great end, and 
has given a code divinely regulated to prevent the abuse of power, 
while its use is made a means of the greatest good. He has placed 
man, whereyer born, under some system of tutelage, from the cradle 
to the grave; he has established a disciplinary scheme to train man, 
by physical restraint, to obedience and submission to law, and to the 


11352 
‘ 


more elevated control of spiritual restraints, and thus, by a system of 
redemption devised in the councils of heaven, in which the end is 
man’s salvation from the slavery of sin, man’s terrestrial slayery is 
made one of the wisely-appointed means for giving him celestial and 
eternal liberty; not the grovelling, earth-born, earth-bounded liberty 
claimed as an inalienable right, but the glorious spiritual liberty of the 
sons of God. 


¥* 


